Human Dignity and Happiness: The Moral Argument for the Right

[occupied]

Too many regulators got free market fever. You live in a dream world. You're obviously not a business owner and you have not been in management or worked on Wall Street. I have done all those, and I still run my own business. The reality is power hungry regulators are regulating us to death. We have government strangled markets, and that is the problem.

You're a hoot though. Clinton had an overt policy of forcing banks to make sub-prime loans and the fed funded them. W came in and said wow, that's not going to end well. Then he continued the policy. Then a few years later the housing bubble burst. But you can't connect those two simple dots.

Data point 1: Government forced banks to make sub-prime loans and government funded them with endless virtually zero interest rates.

Data point 2: The housing bubble burst when sub prime loan holders started to default.

So, occupied, what is the cause and effect relationship between those points?

Uhhh....errrr....hmmmm. Bam, I know, I got it! To much free markets!

All I can say is keep on chugging! The kool-aid is great!

You are not the first one to try to tell me that the crash was all the government's fault but it just doesn't fly. If all those horrible poor people who could no longer afford their homes was the only problem then there probably would not been much of a crash. No it was the huge wave of real estate speculators walking away from their expensive five-year mortgages that hurt the worst, couple that with the Mortgages being leveraged for many times their value and AIG not having enough reserves to pay off losses and you have the perfect storm of lax oversight and drunken bets on shaky investments. Come on you worked on Wall Street (you said) you ought to know this stuff by now.

Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you, I cannot comprehend it for you. You're never going to blame a politician for the consequence of their actions. It is what it is.

Even though you don't know anything about economics, finance or business, if you have a critical mind then you can apply the smell test.

1) My facts, it isn't even a view. All banks followed government policy (to make sub-prime loans) and used virtually zero interest Fed loans to do it. And my view that therefore it's on the politicians who used force on the banks and funded it.

2) Your view that every bank simultaneously decided to make irresponsible loans and collapse at the same time and even though sub-prime loans were government policy and they were using endless, virtually free government cash to do it, all the players in the entire marketplace simultaneously failed on their own.

Yeah, your "theory" reeks to high heaven.

No theory to it, it's what happened, did I leave the government blameless? No I did not, did you leave the banksters blameless? yes you did. If anything in my comments did not actually happen then address it, don't try to simply repeat your "theory" that lets all the banksters off the hook and free to repeat 2008 again.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I can't stand it when liberals try to claim the moral high ground in the debates, and the conservatives are left without a response based on morality. It's so blatantly obvious based on GDP and economic growth data that free enterprise works. Free markets and limited government beat bureaucracy and central planning every day of the week. GDP growth from decades and decades confirms this beyond the tiniest shadow of a doubt. But liberals always talk about how free enterprise is "unfair" and "hurts the little man". We need our own moral argument, and it's pretty simple.

We as conservatives/libertarians believe that people need more than just relief provided by welfare(or the "compassion", as liberals call it). They need empowerment. Liberals always focus on relief, but the real measure of economic success is how many people become self-sufficient, self-reliant individuals. Studies show that people are happier when they feel they've earned their own success. Barack Obama can't give you happiness and fulfill your hopes and dreams. Only the individual can. That's what the right is all about. We're the party of free markets, individual initiative, and capitalism. Our policies ensure that every person has the opportunity to pursue their own happiness and achieve their own hopes and dreams. We need to go to every ghetto in America and preach our message. I believe that most people who are trapped in welfare don't sincerely want to be there for the rest of their lives. We need to focus on providing the opportunity to get out of welfare. Let's win one for free enterprise and opportunity, not bigger government.

As with many on both sides of the aisle, you beat your drums of support over the rhetoric and doctrine, not the practice and implementation. The positions of the GOP are admirable I agree, just as those on the other side are. Unfortunately, neither side lives up to those definitions and ideals as greed and self-serving interest always overrides any thought of 'serving their constituents.'

 

[kaz]

No theory to it, it's what happened, did I leave the government blameless? No I did not, did you leave the banksters blameless? yes you did. If anything in my comments did not actually happen then address it, don't try to simply repeat your "theory" that lets all the banksters off the hook and free to repeat 2008 again.

You're mixing apples and oranges.

1) Government is one entity with one plan. They coordinated pressuring banks to make sub-prime loans and they funded it.

2) The financial industry is a bunch of individual entities each making their own strategy.

I am not blaming the market. That has nothing to do with holding everyone in the market blameless. I am saying that all the cats in the sector did not simultaneously decide to go the same direction and screw up and fail at the same time as you believe.

If one or two screwed up, the market fixes that, those one or two fail. Government not only had a policy, but that policy was specifically to do what happened, make massive sub-prime loans. And yet you can't see what's in front of your face that government's strategy worked, then failed predictably. You want to blame a whole bunch of companies for screwing up in the same way at the same time, which is ridiculous.

 

[Bombur]

No theory to it, it's what happened, did I leave the government blameless? No I did not, did you leave the banksters blameless? yes you did. If anything in my comments did not actually happen then address it, don't try to simply repeat your "theory" that lets all the banksters off the hook and free to repeat 2008 again.

You're mixing apples and oranges.

1) Government is one entity with one plan. They coordinated pressuring banks to make sub-prime loans and they funded it.

2) The financial industry is a bunch of individual entities each making their own strategy.

I am not blaming the market. That has nothing to do with holding everyone in the market blameless. I am saying that all the cats in the sector did not simultaneously decide to go the same direction and screw up and fail at the same time as you believe.

If one or two screwed up, the market fixes that, those one or two fail. Government not only had a policy, but that policy was specifically to do what happened, make massive sub-prime loans. And yet you can't see what's in front of your face that government's strategy worked, then failed predictably. You want to blame a whole bunch of companies for screwing up in the same way at the same time, which is ridiculous.

Actually that is what happens when decisions are made with bad information. The market is ultimately responsible for knowing how much risk they are taking on, which they didn't know. The ratings agencies are responsible for measuring risk, which they did incorrectly.

The number of failures is actually rather remarkable both with regards to the government's inability to regulate the market and the market's inability to regulate itself.

 

[occupied]

No theory to it, it's what happened, did I leave the government blameless? No I did not, did you leave the banksters blameless? yes you did. If anything in my comments did not actually happen then address it, don't try to simply repeat your "theory" that lets all the banksters off the hook and free to repeat 2008 again.

You're mixing apples and oranges.

1) Government is one entity with one plan. They coordinated pressuring banks to make sub-prime loans and they funded it.

2) The financial industry is a bunch of individual entities each making their own strategy.

I am not blaming the market. That has nothing to do with holding everyone in the market blameless. I am saying that all the cats in the sector did not simultaneously decide to go the same direction and screw up and fail at the same time as you believe.

If one or two screwed up, the market fixes that, those one or two fail. Government not only had a policy, but that policy was specifically to do what happened, make massive sub-prime loans. And yet you can't see what's in front of your face that government's strategy worked, then failed predictably. You want to blame a whole bunch of companies for screwing up in the same way at the same time, which is ridiculous.

Since you like to only blame the sub-prime market let me ask you this: if the banks knew these mortgages were bound to fail and only begrudgingly offered them, why then did they leverage them for 20-50 times their value? By your theory they knew the government was underwriting the mortgages but leveraging them put their institutions and AIG on the hook knowing the whole thing was extremely dangerous. If nothing else it was extremely reckless and if your theory were correct it constitutes fraud.

 

[kaz]

No theory to it, it's what happened, did I leave the government blameless? No I did not, did you leave the banksters blameless? yes you did. If anything in my comments did not actually happen then address it, don't try to simply repeat your "theory" that lets all the banksters off the hook and free to repeat 2008 again.

You're mixing apples and oranges.

1) Government is one entity with one plan. They coordinated pressuring banks to make sub-prime loans and they funded it.

2) The financial industry is a bunch of individual entities each making their own strategy.

I am not blaming the market. That has nothing to do with holding everyone in the market blameless. I am saying that all the cats in the sector did not simultaneously decide to go the same direction and screw up and fail at the same time as you believe.

If one or two screwed up, the market fixes that, those one or two fail. Government not only had a policy, but that policy was specifically to do what happened, make massive sub-prime loans. And yet you can't see what's in front of your face that government's strategy worked, then failed predictably. You want to blame a whole bunch of companies for screwing up in the same way at the same time, which is ridiculous.

Since you like to only blame the sub-prime market let me ask you this: if the banks knew these mortgages were bound to fail and only begrudgingly offered them, why then did they leverage them for 20-50 times their value? By your theory they knew the government was underwriting the mortgages but leveraging them put their institutions and AIG on the hook knowing the whole thing was extremely dangerous. If nothing else it was extremely reckless and if your theory were correct it constitutes fraud.

What a bunch of loaded and spun questions. No matter what the politicians did, you aren't going to hold them accountable for any of it, you're going to just keep doing this.

I will say that sub-prime loans were not the whole problem, but that was the big fat first domino to fall. So, in terms of why the institutions failed:

1) In regards to the sub-prime loans, you keep presenting the banks has having a choice. Government coerced them. Furthermore, they thought government would stand behind whatever happened. I think government probably would have, but it became too big a mess for even government to contain.

2) Sub-prime caused a lot of other dominoes to fall. Those other dominoes weren't bad investments when they were made, they were dragged down by the other dominoes that fell. Had it been contained to sub-prime, the market would have worked. The guilty companies would have failed. But the sub-prime popped the housing bubble, and that burst the real estate valuations, and that brought down a bunch of other housing securities, that that spread into other sectors of the economy, and the recession nailed everyone else.

The worst thing government does to create a housing bubble isn't even the sub-prime, it's the mortgage deduction which endlessly inflates prices and encourages people to take on too much debt, and we can't just end it or it would be a greater burst than the one Clinton caused.

 

[kaz]

No theory to it, it's what happened, did I leave the government blameless? No I did not, did you leave the banksters blameless? yes you did. If anything in my comments did not actually happen then address it, don't try to simply repeat your "theory" that lets all the banksters off the hook and free to repeat 2008 again.

You're mixing apples and oranges.

1) Government is one entity with one plan. They coordinated pressuring banks to make sub-prime loans and they funded it.

2) The financial industry is a bunch of individual entities each making their own strategy.

I am not blaming the market. That has nothing to do with holding everyone in the market blameless. I am saying that all the cats in the sector did not simultaneously decide to go the same direction and screw up and fail at the same time as you believe.

If one or two screwed up, the market fixes that, those one or two fail. Government not only had a policy, but that policy was specifically to do what happened, make massive sub-prime loans. And yet you can't see what's in front of your face that government's strategy worked, then failed predictably. You want to blame a whole bunch of companies for screwing up in the same way at the same time, which is ridiculous.

Actually that is what happens when decisions are made with bad information. The market is ultimately responsible for knowing how much risk they are taking on, which they didn't know. The ratings agencies are responsible for measuring risk, which they did incorrectly.

The number of failures is actually rather remarkable both with regards to the government's inability to regulate the market and the market's inability to regulate itself.

You equate these:

1) government, which had a policy to do what happened

2) rating agencies, which are trying to rate based on predicting the consequence of government policies.

That's ridiculous. The market thought that government would be able to back what they were doing. It is their evaluation of government and not securities that failed.

 

[occupied]

You're mixing apples and oranges.

1) Government is one entity with one plan. They coordinated pressuring banks to make sub-prime loans and they funded it.

2) The financial industry is a bunch of individual entities each making their own strategy.

I am not blaming the market. That has nothing to do with holding everyone in the market blameless. I am saying that all the cats in the sector did not simultaneously decide to go the same direction and screw up and fail at the same time as you believe.

If one or two screwed up, the market fixes that, those one or two fail. Government not only had a policy, but that policy was specifically to do what happened, make massive sub-prime loans. And yet you can't see what's in front of your face that government's strategy worked, then failed predictably. You want to blame a whole bunch of companies for screwing up in the same way at the same time, which is ridiculous.

Since you like to only blame the sub-prime market let me ask you this: if the banks knew these mortgages were bound to fail and only begrudgingly offered them, why then did they leverage them for 20-50 times their value? By your theory they knew the government was underwriting the mortgages but leveraging them put their institutions and AIG on the hook knowing the whole thing was extremely dangerous. If nothing else it was extremely reckless and if your theory were correct it constitutes fraud.

What a bunch of loaded and spun questions. No matter what the politicians did, you aren't going to hold them accountable for any of it, you're going to just keep doing this.

I will say that sub-prime loans were not the whole problem, but that was the big fat first domino to fall. So, in terms of why the institutions failed:

1) In regards to the sub-prime loans, you keep presenting the banks has having a choice. Government coerced them. Furthermore, they thought government would stand behind whatever happened. I think government probably would have, but it became too big a mess for even government to contain.

2) Sub-prime caused a lot of other dominoes to fall. Those other dominoes weren't bad investments when they were made, they were dragged down by the other dominoes that fell. Had it been contained to sub-prime, the market would have worked. The guilty companies would have failed. But the sub-prime popped the housing bubble, and that burst the real estate valuations, and that brought down a bunch of other housing securities, that that spread into other sectors of the economy, and the recession nailed everyone else.

The worst thing government does to create a housing bubble isn't even the sub-prime, it's the mortgage deduction which endlessly inflates prices and encourages people to take on too much debt, and we can't just end it or it would be a greater burst than the one Clinton caused.

Well that's at least somewhat accurate in it's essential timeline but if you look back at the comment that you first had issue with you will find that I started out with the fact that government did a horrible job of regulating the industry as they are supposed to. I do not hold politicians blameless, far from it, but counter to what you would probably say I feel that they let the bankers write all the regs and then pretty much refused to enforce what little regulation existed.

By 2005-06 no one who kept up with such things had any doubt that the mortgage industry was dangerously inflated, there was still time to do something but as with all things connected with banking regs there was incredible pressure from the industry to keep government hands off our free market, by the time a weak reform made it through congress in 2007 it was already too late.

You need to understand my position here I do not see a big divide between the banking industry and the government agencies charged with regulating them, one look at who sat/sits on these various agencies reveals not a bunch of communists but a bunch of big bank alumni who really don't do anything of value to anyone but the banks they used to work for and will again as soon as their terms are up.

 

[Bombur]

You're mixing apples and oranges.

1) Government is one entity with one plan. They coordinated pressuring banks to make sub-prime loans and they funded it.

2) The financial industry is a bunch of individual entities each making their own strategy.

I am not blaming the market. That has nothing to do with holding everyone in the market blameless. I am saying that all the cats in the sector did not simultaneously decide to go the same direction and screw up and fail at the same time as you believe.

If one or two screwed up, the market fixes that, those one or two fail. Government not only had a policy, but that policy was specifically to do what happened, make massive sub-prime loans. And yet you can't see what's in front of your face that government's strategy worked, then failed predictably. You want to blame a whole bunch of companies for screwing up in the same way at the same time, which is ridiculous.

Actually that is what happens when decisions are made with bad information. The market is ultimately responsible for knowing how much risk they are taking on, which they didn't know. The ratings agencies are responsible for measuring risk, which they did incorrectly.

The number of failures is actually rather remarkable both with regards to the government's inability to regulate the market and the market's inability to regulate itself.

You equate these:

1) government, which had a policy to do what happened

2) rating agencies, which are trying to rate based on predicting the consequence of government policies.

That's ridiculous. The market thought that government would be able to back what they were doing. It is their evaluation of government and not securities that failed.

That is just factually inaccurate but nice try.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Too many regulators got free market fever. You live in a dream world. You're obviously not a business owner and you have not been in management or worked on Wall Street. I have done all those, and I still run my own business. The reality is power hungry regulators are regulating us to death. We have government strangled markets, and that is the problem.

You're a hoot though. Clinton had an overt policy of forcing banks to make sub-prime loans and the fed funded them. W came in and said wow, that's not going to end well. Then he continued the policy. Then a few years later the housing bubble burst. But you can't connect those two simple dots.

Data point 1: Government forced banks to make sub-prime loans and government funded them with endless virtually zero interest rates.

Data point 2: The housing bubble burst when sub prime loan holders started to default.

So, occupied, what is the cause and effect relationship between those points?

Uhhh....errrr....hmmmm. Bam, I know, I got it! To much free markets!

All I can say is keep on chugging! The kool-aid is great!

You are not the first one to try to tell me that the crash was all the government's fault but it just doesn't fly. If all those horrible poor people who could no longer afford their homes was the only problem then there probably would not been much of a crash. No it was the huge wave of real estate speculators walking away from their expensive five-year mortgages that hurt the worst, couple that with the Mortgages being leveraged for many times their value and AIG not having enough reserves to pay off losses and you have the perfect storm of lax oversight and drunken bets on shaky investments. Come on you worked on Wall Street (you said) you ought to know this stuff by now.

Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you, I cannot comprehend it for you. You're never going to blame a politician for the consequence of their actions. It is what it is.

Even though you don't know anything about economics, finance or business, if you have a critical mind then you can apply the smell test.

1) My facts, it isn't even a view. All banks followed government policy (to make sub-prime loans) and used virtually zero interest Fed loans to do it. And my view that therefore it's on the politicians who used force on the banks and funded it.

2) Your view that every bank simultaneously decided to make irresponsible loans and collapse at the same time and even though sub-prime loans were government policy and they were using endless, virtually free government cash to do it, all the players in the entire marketplace simultaneously failed on their own.

Yeah, your "theory" reeks to high heaven.

Sub-prime loans were a profit bonanza for the lenders and that is the only reason there was a frenzy to write them.

 

[BlackSand]

The problem is that the GOP has been, and continues to be, absolutely terrible at delivering this message.

First, it seems to be absolutely unwilling (unable?) to challenge people to be more independent. It appears to now be afraid the Left will do what it does best - swoop in and call you greedy meanies - and now doesn't really seem to HAVE a message. The closest thing the party has to a message right now is "we don't like Obama". Is that dynamic leadership?

Second, it is showing absolutely no interest in delivering this message to people it will need as demographics continue to change. I'm virulently against Identity Politics, but the least the party can do is practice what it preaches and speak to minorities with the same passion with which it speaks to whites. Until you get in their faces, why should they listen to you?

And third, the party is still polluted by too many people who play right into the Left's hands with blazingly stupid comments about minorities, women, health care and other issues. In other words, there are far too many Mark Levin wannabes running around, and the press is more than willing to give them all the rope they need to hang themselves and the party.

The GOP is still in disarray, and it appears to be getting worse, if that's possible.

.

I obviously am not a politician for the GOP … But I think they will have problems pursuing a lot of what has been suggested.

Independence and self-sustainability don't make a great stump speech for anyone who doesn't have either … Those concepts appeal to people who know the importance of those principles.
Campaigning on the idea that the GOP needs to reach out to more demographics by telling them what they aren't going to do for them in an atmosphere where your opponent is playing Santa Clause is probably not your best choice.
The best thing someone who is interested in smaller more responsible government can hope for … Is the candidates speaking to them to tell them more about what they won't do when they get to Washington.

The GOP isn't battling for the voters they already have … They are fighting for voters who do not support the idea of personal responsibility and independence … And Republicans make crappy Liberals.

Then we get stuck with the “Alternative Party” versus the “Opposing Party” … Which only means that the GOP will let the DNC set the agenda and then play catch-up on everything.
The ACA sucks … Has sucked … And has as many supporters on one side of the spectrum as it has detractors on the other.
Now the GOP is putting together an alternate plan to handle what could have been handled better in the ACA … And because the President and members of the DNC told them they needed to make a plan if they wanted to argue.
The same thing will happen with Immigration, Minimum Wage … And whatever other stupid battle members of the Democrat Party sucker the GOP into.

If the GOP really wants to be the “Alternative Party” … Then they need to start presenting their alternatives to topics, political action and legislative matters the DNC wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

Stop letting the DNC walk all over you folks … Set the Agenda … And then beat you to death with it.
The GOP is not going to win over Progressive Liberals … And you better start getting the pissed off people who aren't voting to go to the polls.
Ask them why they are have no faith in government ... And reach out to them ... Or continue to straddle the fence trying to scoop up wishy-washy Moderates.

.

 

[occupied]

You are not the first one to try to tell me that the crash was all the government's fault but it just doesn't fly. If all those horrible poor people who could no longer afford their homes was the only problem then there probably would not been much of a crash. No it was the huge wave of real estate speculators walking away from their expensive five-year mortgages that hurt the worst, couple that with the Mortgages being leveraged for many times their value and AIG not having enough reserves to pay off losses and you have the perfect storm of lax oversight and drunken bets on shaky investments. Come on you worked on Wall Street (you said) you ought to know this stuff by now.

Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you, I cannot comprehend it for you. You're never going to blame a politician for the consequence of their actions. It is what it is.

Even though you don't know anything about economics, finance or business, if you have a critical mind then you can apply the smell test.

1) My facts, it isn't even a view. All banks followed government policy (to make sub-prime loans) and used virtually zero interest Fed loans to do it. And my view that therefore it's on the politicians who used force on the banks and funded it.

2) Your view that every bank simultaneously decided to make irresponsible loans and collapse at the same time and even though sub-prime loans were government policy and they were using endless, virtually free government cash to do it, all the players in the entire marketplace simultaneously failed on their own.

Yeah, your "theory" reeks to high heaven.

Sub-prime loans were a profit bonanza for the lenders and that is the only reason there was a frenzy to write them.

You are correct, Countrywide was once one of the most profitable financial institutions in the world.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where is the morality in a political philosophy that champions the idea of throwing the People to the wolves of the so-called free market?

The market is probably the most amoral institution in all of civilization.

 

[kaz]

You need to understand my position here I do not see a big divide between the banking industry and the government agencies charged with regulating them, one look at who sat/sits on these various agencies reveals not a bunch of communists but a bunch of big bank alumni who really don't do anything of value to anyone but the banks they used to work for and will again as soon as their terms are up.

Clearly big banks are in bed with government, it was big bankers who got the government to create the fed in the first place. But then you turn around and

1) You want to give government MORE power. WTF? You are asking for vodka tonics the morning after while you're hung over.

2) You equate the big banks with the market. See #1. Government isn't regulating banks to prevent them from doing stupid things, they are helping the big banks get bigger in an unholy alliance.

It is DEREGULATION that is the obvious fix to the problem. Reduce the power of government and their alliance with the big banks, and then the smaller players will do to them what Southwest, Air Tran and the newer airlines did to the legacy carriers.

You are putting poison in the poison. Think about it. More power = more big bank control and less competition. It does not equal more banking stability.

 

[kaz]

Actually that is what happens when decisions are made with bad information. The market is ultimately responsible for knowing how much risk they are taking on, which they didn't know. The ratings agencies are responsible for measuring risk, which they did incorrectly.

The number of failures is actually rather remarkable both with regards to the government's inability to regulate the market and the market's inability to regulate itself.

You equate these:

1) government, which had a policy to do what happened

2) rating agencies, which are trying to rate based on predicting the consequence of government policies.

That's ridiculous. The market thought that government would be able to back what they were doing. It is their evaluation of government and not securities that failed.

That is just factually inaccurate but nice try.

I hear ya man, obviously the liberal politicians you're parroting are the ones who really know finance and economics. I see why you believe every word that comes out of their mouth. It's not their fault that what they are telling you is completely self serving. Lawyers just know finance better than finance people do. It just is. That you see that is just your critical mind in action.

 

[occupied]

Where is the morality in a political philosophy that champions the idea of throwing the People to the wolves of the so-called free market?

The market is probably the most amoral institution in all of civilization.

There is not a more horribly exploitative bunch of people on the planet than "The Stockholders".

 

[kaz]

Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you, I cannot comprehend it for you. You're never going to blame a politician for the consequence of their actions. It is what it is.

Even though you don't know anything about economics, finance or business, if you have a critical mind then you can apply the smell test.

1) My facts, it isn't even a view. All banks followed government policy (to make sub-prime loans) and used virtually zero interest Fed loans to do it. And my view that therefore it's on the politicians who used force on the banks and funded it.

2) Your view that every bank simultaneously decided to make irresponsible loans and collapse at the same time and even though sub-prime loans were government policy and they were using endless, virtually free government cash to do it, all the players in the entire marketplace simultaneously failed on their own.

Yeah, your "theory" reeks to high heaven.

Sub-prime loans were a profit bonanza for the lenders and that is the only reason there was a frenzy to write them.

You are correct, Countrywide was once one of the most profitable financial institutions in the world.

It's Pete and Repeat. You two simpletons still don't know what a Ponzi scheme is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The idea that the government should have less power, and the banks more, is the kind of insanity that conservatism is best at producing.

 

[occupied]

You need to understand my position here I do not see a big divide between the banking industry and the government agencies charged with regulating them, one look at who sat/sits on these various agencies reveals not a bunch of communists but a bunch of big bank alumni who really don't do anything of value to anyone but the banks they used to work for and will again as soon as their terms are up.

Clearly big banks are in bed with government, it was big bankers who got the government to create the fed in the first place. But then you turn around and

1) You want to give government MORE power. WTF? You are asking for vodka tonics the morning after while you're hung over.

2) You equate the big banks with the market. See #1. Government isn't regulating banks to prevent them from doing stupid things, they are helping the big banks get bigger in an unholy alliance.

It is DEREGULATION that is the obvious fix to the problem. Reduce the power of government and their alliance with the big banks, and then the smaller players will do to them what Southwest, Air Tran and the newer airlines did to the legacy carriers.

You are putting poison in the poison. Think about it. More power = more big bank control and less competition. It does not equal more banking stability.

Deregulation was the banker's idea in the first place, we are not falling for that one again. The late nineties were a regulation battlefield where the bankers clearly won out and had a host of cautious banking regs stripped or rendered toothless, you think we need more of that? We need various consumer protections put back in place. Let the banks risk their own money on bullshit high risk casino bets if that's what they want.

 

[occupied]

Sub-prime loans were a profit bonanza for the lenders and that is the only reason there was a frenzy to write them.

You are correct, Countrywide was once one of the most profitable financial institutions in the world.

It's Pete and Repeat. You two simpletons still don't know what a Ponzi scheme is.

I know exactly what it is and holy deregulation dogma made it all possible, Countrywide came about precisely because of deregulation and lax enforcement.